QUAD CORE AMD coming in a month! Motherboard showing off today

NulloModo said:
I wouldn't be so sure. Never underestimate the power of phanboiism. Just as those of us who have been enthusiasts for 10 years or more are mentally hard-coded that Intel is always best, those that just got into the game in the last couple years are set to AMD-Rules mode. AMD has never had the mass-market appeal, but with their current line-up and high priced high-profit options like this, they will keep raking in the dough, regardless of what performs better.
Click to expand...

You got that right!

Now since when is having to use 4 vs. 2 to "WIN" a good thing? I clearly remember AMD guys first listening to AMD and saying Hyperthreading doesn't work only later to say it was cheating. Many of them even called it a Fix for a flaw on the Netburst processors. Whatever it was, it didn't cost an Arm and a Leg like $X$.
 
Donnie27 said:
Now since when is having to use 4 vs. 2 to "WIN" a good thing? I clearly remember AMD guys first listening to AMD and saying Hyperthreading doesn't work only later to say it was cheating. Many of them even called it a Fix for a flaw on the Netburst processors. Whatever it was, it didn't cost an Arm and a Leg like $X$.
Click to expand...
Slightly off topic here but oh well:

I remember people saying that no one would ever need more than 4 megs of RAM. I remember people saying that 32-bit would always be enough. I remeber people bashing dual-core and calling it a "waste". I remember people trashing SLI and Crossfire calling them "lame", "a waste", and "too expensive".

Most of these things are common place now. All those people were wrong.

----

Right now I hear people saying quad-core is overkill, I hear people saying dual-socket is too much and no one will need it, and I hear people saying that 64-bit doesn't do anything. Every single one of you will be wrong in the future as well.

Anytime you fight progress, you are on the losing side of the battle ;)
 
I think I'll stick with my dual 275s over this marketing poo. If anything, now prices will be low enough for me to build another 2x275 box for VMWare. Stupid media.
 
visaris said:
Right now I hear people saying quad-core is overkill, I hear people saying dual-socket is too much and no one will need it, and I hear people saying that 64-bit doesn't do anything. Every single one of you will be wrong in the future as well.

Anytime you fight progress, you are on the losing side of the battle ;)
Click to expand...

Anytime a consumer supports being gouged 2x for unenumerated benefits, they either don't work for a living, don't pay the bills, or have a practically inexhaustible supply of money. In any case, they would be too tupid to be [H]ard!

Exactly what tangible benefits, when this platform is being marketed to "enthusiasts", is it going to give to 99% of the people [h]ere?

And is it really worth 2 times even 300 bucks for a bottom-end x2?

Hey, I got an idea. I heard there's a type of vehicle that takes off vertically, flies at amazing speeds, and lands vertically, too! Why don't you go buy one in the name of progress.
 
Bao01 said:
Anytime a consumer supports being gouged 2x for unenumerated benefits, they either don't work for a living, don't pay the bills, or have a practically inexhaustible supply of money. In any case, they would be too tupid to be [H]ard!

Exactly what tangible benefits, when this platform is being marketed to "enthusiasts", is it going to give to 99% of the people [h]ere?

And is it really worth 2 times even 300 bucks for a bottom-end x2?

Hey, I got an idea. I heard there's a type of vehicle that takes off vertically, flies at amazing speeds, and lands vertically, too! Why don't you go buy one in the name of progress.
Click to expand...



do you own a car? if it goes faster than 75mph (the highest speed light in the USA) then its overkill. Right? I mean who needs a car that goes faster than that?

This 4x4 is the same thing... no its not necessary, but it is offered for those who wish to have it. No one is forcing you to buy it... its called innovation, advancement in technology.. its all part of the cycle of consumerism.
 
Bao01 said:
Anytime a consumer supports being gouged 2x for unenumerated benefits, they either don't work for a living, don't pay the bills, or have a practically inexhaustible supply of money. In any case, they would be too tupid to be [H]ard!
Click to expand...


I think you have it backwards. People who don't work for living don't have a good job, don't have much cash, and certainly don't work on their computers. People who work for a living have a job, have income, and are more likely to be using their computer for work-related activities. If I didn't work for a living and didn't have my current job, I could get by on a single-core game rig (also, that is probably all I could afford). Because I have a job and like to be able to do work realted tasks at the same time as I do my own personal activities, more cores really does turn into increased productivity and gives me more leasure time.

Also, how am I being "gouged"? I have a dual-opteron box. 4x4 is going to cost less. This is a discount, not a price increase. I swear, you people are crazy if you think the word "cheap" can be attached to a complete Opteron setup. There is no way in hell 4x4 is going to cost more at a given performance point.

It sounds to me like you are trying to call me stupid because I'm excited about being able to get a two-socket rig for less than I paid for my current one. :rolleyes:

Bao01 said:
Exactly what tangible benefits, when this platform is being marketed to "enthusiasts", is it going to give to 99% of the people [h]ere?
Click to expand...

See, this is the same argument I have to fight over and over and over again because people are not thinking outside of their little box.

"Exactly what tangible benefits"? The same benifits that come from a dual socket Opteron board but slightly more. I have a dual-socket, dual-core box (four cores total) and I have every single one of them working to the max, every hour of every day. I have to suspend tasks whenever I want to game because I don't have enough power to game at the same time. I'm not trying to claim that every user needs four cores this moment; not every one will. If you don't need it, don't buy it. 4x4 is a new product for people like me who want and use their computers to the max. If you play a game now and again this isn't for you. 4x4 is for the [H]ardest of the [H]ard. I guess you just don't fit into that category. :p

Bao01 said:
And is it really worth 2 times even 300 bucks for a bottom-end x2?
Click to expand...
Yeah. I paid around, what? $600 for my Opteron 265s when they first came out. Somewhere around that anyways. They were worth every penny. I would love to be able to drop in some AM2 parts because they are quite a bit cheaper.

See, again you miss the point because you are trying to compare 4x4 to a single socket setup. 4x4 is a dual-socket platform and as such it should be compared to Opteron/Woodcrest. When you look at the prices and performance of the three platforms, 4x4 really is the clear winner for people who are not crazy about server-class features and reliability.

Bao01 said:
Hey, I got an idea. I heard there's a type of vehicle that takes off vertically, flies at amazing speeds, and lands vertically, too! Why don't you go buy one in the name of progress.
Click to expand...
If no one purchased your fancy flying car, it would die off and no one would have a flying car.

If a enough people thought the car was cool, it would be mass produced, the price would drop, and soon everyone would have a flying car for not too much more they their current cars. It may take a while, but this is the way new technology works. The early adoptors do everyone else a huge favor. I may even go so far as to say it is an altruistic act.
 
Dual Socket Dual Core is interesting, though for the moment it won't net any performance gains in gaming which is still in it's infancy for extracting performance from Dual Core let alone any 4 cores solution.

It will only help if the program is designed to extract performance from more then 2 Cores.

The problem with this is that with 4 Cores it has only been roughly a year or since the introduction of Dual Core on desktop, so the software hasn't yet had a chance to get caught up yet to the hardware. There are still not to many programs that can take advantage of Dual Core for most consumers, let alone a 4 Core Solution.

Though it again begs the question are you willing to sacrifice this much single thread performance for this level of multithreaded performance. It depends strictly on costs, as well as your workloads. With this 4 Core Solution, you sacrifice even more then you did with Dual Core, though in absolute terms the lowest of this line is going to be 2x(303US) + the additional motherboard cost assuming of course it works with all Dual Cores. This is only a little more then the 537US AMD asked for the Athlon 64x2 4200+ at launch. You also need to completely populate all 4 DIMM's for the RAM if you want Dual Channel memory to both cores.

I don't think you can compare the solution of 4 Core CPU to SLI/Crossfire or 64Bit Extensions.

For one graphics are inherently parallel so gains are much easier to extract by adding in another graphics card, but due to overhead, it is always more favourable to have a more powerful single graphics card then 2 weaker ones in parrallel. So SLI/Crossfire makes sense for people who want to have higher performance then the top end single card solutions.

With a Dual Core solution we are now nearing the point where there is no price premium for an Dual Core vs the Single Core, shortly with the introduction of Conroe you will be able to buy both the Pentium 4 651 and Pentium D 945 for 163US, so you basically get Dual Core for free.

With x86 64Bit Extensions, the adoption was slow due to AMD being one to introduce it to the desktop, as well as no mainstream 64Bit Opterating system till much later. It wasn't until the introduction of Pentium 4 6xx Series that adoption got a huge jump, and now that 64Bit is mass market available were now waiting for the yet another piece of this puzzle Windows Vista. Then after that we still need to wait for 64Bit Programs.

Though for most people you really need to evaluate what you will be doing to make this solution makes any sort of sense for what you will be doing.
 
visaris: we are not against quad core, but its not time for it yet, as the current batch haven't yet utiulised dual core and you are pusing for quad core, once the programs start using dual cores as a norm, then you only push for quad core..

its a matter of the right time and right place

and the cost benefit as well as overall performance gain is not htere for those not heavily into multi stream work
 
I dont get why people are groaning about single threaded performance....

As far as I can tell AMD has a 2.8 ghz single core chip, and a 2.8ghz dual core chip..... No sacrifise as far as I can see.

Also same with 64bit OS.... I've been running 64bit for almost two years now. All my software included. Everything....

It depends on what you are willing to do to get what you want. You can either wait for others to do what you want, or you can get off your ass and do it yourself.
 
visaris said:
Slightly off topic here but oh well:

I remember people saying that no one would ever need more than 4 megs of RAM. I remember people saying that 32-bit would always be enough. I remeber people bashing dual-core and calling it a "waste". I remember people trashing SLI and Crossfire calling them "lame", "a waste", and "too expensive".
Click to expand...

I remember Bill Grates saying that and many folks said BS when he said it. I remember seeing Quake2 in 32bit mode again, TNT-1 was worth it. I Don't remember folks Bashing Dual Core and I even downplayed Dual Core and Hyptherthreading together and even post links to Chris Morly here to show why. He agree afterwards.

Not off subject because there will very few apps that will justify the cost of $X$. Aimmed Gamers is really BS to say the least.

visaris said:
Most of these things are common place now. All those people were wrong.
Click to expand...

Pretty bad analogies too.
----

visaris said:
Right now I hear people saying quad-core is overkill, I hear people saying dual-socket is too much and no one will need it, and I hear people saying that 64-bit doesn't do anything. Every single one of you will be wrong in the future as well.

Anytime you fight progress, you are on the losing side of the battle ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not hearing that it is overkill as much as I'm hearing that it shouldn't be aimmed at Gamers and expected high costs. There are markets for something like this but Gamers.
I'm still kind of shocked not many have stated the weakness of needing two processors to counter one. What next, 8 cores to out do Kentfield?

So I beg to differ, sorry this is NOT progress. Progress would be a Dual Core, that cost less, ran cooler, is faster, and etc.... out doing another Dual Core like Conroe did to X2.
 
Donnie27 said:
So I beg to differ, sorry this is NOT progress. Progress would be a Dual Core, that cost less, ran cooler, is faster, and etc.... out doing another Dual Core like Conroe did to X2.
Click to expand...
just to pick a fight.. then i guess the move from single to dual core wasn't progress. nor to dual channel memory, sli, ect ect.. all those things that initially didn't help at all, but did in the long run ;)

anytime a change is made, it's progress. whether it's useful progress, or even forward progress, can be debated, but you CANNOT say that it isn't progress :D
 
Eh, I guess I understand you. We just have a different perspective. I suppose most of you want a speed increase in a single app. What I want to do is run many applications at the same time.

The first time I got two single-core Opterons I loved it so much I knew I would never go back. The first time I got two dual-core Opterons, I loved it so much I knew I could never go back to just two cores.

While a huge performance increase in one app is always nice, that isn't really what I'm after. All I want is an OS that does a good job managing threads and processes (yay for linux and NPTL!). I love having a mess of cores because I like to run many things at once.

I have a simulation or two running for work 24x7 at a lower priority so I don't have to sacrifice too much responsiveness. This alone can max the cores at times. On top of that I run a couple of emacs instances for writing code and there is usually a compile or two running for around two min at a time when I want to test my recent changes; this happens a lot. I'm always loading and closing some rather large pdf files which can take some time to load, render, and scale. Then there is firefox with 20 or so tabs; this shouldn't take too many cycles though. Thunderbird for email, XMMS for mp3 playing, gaim for IM; a light load as well. I usualy have at least 4 SSH sessions going and around 20 console windows; again, these don't take too many cycles. The point is that all this little stuff adds up and the compiles + simulations alone already had the box at max useage. Could I do all this on one core? Perhaps, but it would be slow, unresponsive, and my simulations would take weeks instead of days.

I guess my point is that depending on what one does, it doesn't matter if there are no apps written to take advantage of four cores because the OS does that for you.
 
Donnie27 said:
Not off subject because there will very few apps that will justify the cost of $X$. Aimmed Gamers is really BS to say the least.
Click to expand...
No, I was saying my reply was off topic, not your post. Also, I like your $x$, that's kinda funny :)

Donnie27 said:
I'm not hearing that it is overkill as much as I'm hearing that it shouldn't be aimmed at Gamers and expected high costs. There are markets for something like this but [not] Gamers.
Click to expand...
Again, you assume this is for gamers and only gamers. How about you assume that 4x4 is for whoever thinks it would be a good product for them? All the sudden 4x4 doesn't sound so bad if you think about it right.


Donnie27 said:
So I beg to differ, sorry this is NOT progress. Progress would be a Dual Core, that cost less, ran cooler, is faster, and etc.... out doing another Dual Core like Conroe did to X2.
Click to expand...
Again, this is progress. This may not be progress for you, or for gamers, but I have to admit that this is something I need to think about for my next upgrade. Will a dual socket-F Opteron be better for me, or a 4x4 system with some X2s? I don't know, and I'll have to wait and see, but so far, 4x4 seems like an interesting and potentially cheaper solution for me.
 
visaris said:
No, I was saying my reply was off topic, not your post. Also, I like your $x$, that's kinda funny :)[/QUTOE]

Thanks and I know.


visaris said:
Again, you assume this is for gamers and only gamers. How about you assume that 4x4 is for whoever thinks it would be a good product for them? All the sudden 4x4 doesn't sound so bad if you think about it right.
Click to expand...

No, it's not me assuming it's for Gamers, AMD's PR person said it was from Gamers as I linked him saying just that.

Again, this is progress. This may not be progress for you, or for gamers, but I have to admit that this is something I need to think about for my next upgrade. Will a dual socket-F Opteron be better for me, or a 4x4 system with some X2s? I don't know, and I'll have to wait and see, but so far, 4x4 seems like an interesting and potentially cheaper solution for me.
Click to expand...

Needing to move to two processors to out do one is not Progress, yes IMHO!

Anandtech said:
First off, AMD is pushing a new high end enthusiast platform consisting of dual socket motherboards for dual core processors combined with quad GPU solutions. In an incredibly unoriginal moment of indiscretion, this platform has been dubbed 4x4. Uninspired, yet very appropriate: the platform will very likely be large, loud, and so power hungry we will need a gas powered generator to run it. That doesn't mean we wouldn't want to own a system. We just aren't sure we'd want to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Says it all.

Dailytech said:
AMD will also be releasing a new enthusiast focused chipset for the market, which is designed to take non-ECC unbuffered DDR memory. The new motherboards will be AM2 based, and take new AM2 FX-62 and higher -- all AM2 Athlon FX processors will have at least two cores.
Click to expand...

I don't like the perverting of the word "enthusiast" to mean easy to get money from or AKA Sucker.

No, this will use more power and be MUCH more expensive than the Quad Opteron or Woodcrest. No, for me, it is not question of even Intel or AMD but performance at what cost? If I needed a Quad Core I'm more than likely wait to see what happens between K8L and Kentfield, too early to pick a winner. If not then Woodcrest gets a real hard look.
Click to expand...
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
just to pick a fight.. then i guess the move from single to dual core wasn't progress. nor to dual channel memory, sli, ect ect.. all those things that initially didn't help at all, but did in the long run ;)

anytime a change is made, it's progress. whether it's useful progress, or even forward progress, can be debated, but you CANNOT say that it isn't progress :D
Click to expand...

Dual Core was Progress because they moved to something faster than two single core processors. Moving to Dual Channel RAM was just a controller that didn't double the price or created tons of other problems.

Some change is good and other times it is not. Prescott is a good example of something meant to be an upgrade that didn't turn out. AMD could be seen as 3200+ not really being progress on the first 2800+ or To Willy from P3 until it could get much higher MHz on the P4's part.

For SLI, would you rather have a Dual GPU card or Two Cards?
 
Donnie27 said:
Needing to move to two processors to out do one is not Progress, yes IMHO!
Click to expand...
So drop in two K8L chips in 2007. Then 4x4 should be twice as fast as Conroe. 4x4 is a socket/platform, not a CPU.
 
visaris said:
I think you have it backwards. People who don't work for living don't have a good job, don't have much cash, and certainly don't work on their computers. People who work for a living have a job, have income, and are more likely to be using their computer for work-related activities. If I didn't work for a living and didn't have my current job, I could get by on a single-core game rig (also, that is probably all I could afford). Because I have a job and like to be able to do work realted tasks at the same time as I do my own personal activities, more cores really does turn into increased productivity and gives me more leasure time.

Also, how am I being "gouged"? I have a dual-opteron box. 4x4 is going to cost less. This is a discount, not a price increase. I swear, you people are crazy if you think the word "cheap" can be attached to a complete Opteron setup. There is no way in hell 4x4 is going to cost more at a given performance point.

It sounds to me like you are trying to call me stupid because I'm excited about being able to get a two-socket rig for less than I paid for my current one. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are the only one claiming this particular benefit because of your usage patterns in 9 pages. I will take your word for it. However, any other case would fit the bill I gave you. The unemployed have alot of free time to do this on internet forums, spreading BS. Those who are not yet independent also seem to do the same. I am certainly not talking about people who buy products since the product we are talking about is not even out yet.

visaris said:
See, this is the same argument I have to fight over and over and over again because people are not thinking outside of their little box.

"Exactly what tangible benefits"? The same benifits that come from a dual socket Opteron board but slightly more. I have a dual-socket, dual-core box (four cores total) and I have every single one of them working to the max, every hour of every day. I have to suspend tasks whenever I want to game because I don't have enough power to game at the same time. I'm not trying to claim that every user needs four cores this moment; not every one will. If you don't need it, don't buy it. 4x4 is a new product for people like me who want and use their computers to the max. If you play a game now and again this isn't for you. 4x4 is for the [H]ardest of the [H]ard. I guess you just don't fit into that category. :p


Yeah. I paid around, what? $600 for my Opteron 265s when they first came out. Somewhere around that anyways. They were worth every penny. I would love to be able to drop in some AM2 parts because they are quite a bit cheaper.

See, again you miss the point because you are trying to compare 4x4 to a single socket setup. 4x4 is a dual-socket platform and as such it should be compared to Opteron/Woodcrest. When you look at the prices and performance of the three platforms, 4x4 really is the clear winner for people who are not crazy about server-class features and reliability.
Click to expand...

The problem is even with your single special case, you're making a tradeoff. Something, though you are not crazy about(server-class features and reliability) for something that you are crazy about(price). Since you say you wouldn't miss the first, you're really just talking about price. Ok, so no problem for you in particular.

But, now that you bring up Intel processors. How about Conroe? Would not an OC'd Conroe run rings around your 4-cored rig? and cost less?

visaris said:
If no one purchased your fancy flying car, it would die off and no one would have a flying car.

If a enough people thought the car was cool, it would be mass produced, the price would drop, and soon everyone would have a flying car for not too much more they their current cars. It may take a while, but this is the way new technology works. The early adoptors do everyone else a huge favor. I may even go so far as to say it is an altruistic act.
Click to expand...

LOL! I think you're confused. I wasn't talking about a car. I don't know of any flying cars at present. But, I do know helicopters and a few military jets are the only current VTO/Ls around. I doubt you can get your hands on the jets. But, the helicopters have always been around as long as price is no object. That, my friend is progress for you. Everyone should buy helicopters because, as you say, the price would drop and they'll become cheaper. Be an early adoptor. It's altruistic.
 
If you were tired of getting your core0 to catch up to your stronger core, imagine how overclocking four cores must be like? Not good!! :p
 
visaris said:
So drop in two K8L chips in 2007. Then 4x4 should be twice as fast as Conroe. 4x4 is a socket/platform, not a CPU.
Click to expand...

All you end up with is a a smaller Bank account, higher electric bill. Please note, I've already said it should be seen as weak to have to move to multiple dual cores to out do one dual core. Note, I'm talking about the platform. So someone will do the same with Intel and Dual in two Kentfields so what then? Most apps are still single threaded.

Again, adding SLI to on the shelf Dual Socket boards to combat one Dual Core processor is not Progress IMHO.
 
Ockie said:
Pretty immaturish response regarding a fact.
Click to expand...
Pretty insightful post regarding a previous immaturish response to a factual concern.
:confused:
:p

anyhoo , looks like we might be seeing a new norm with hardware ..if you cant get the chip to perform faster ...just add more chips!

AMD & nVidia FTW

 
ThreeDee said:
Pretty insightful post regarding a previous immaturish response to a factual concern.
:confused:
:p

anyhoo , looks like we might be seeing a new norm with hardware ..if you cant get the chip to perform faster ...just add more chips!

AMD & nVidia FTW

Click to expand...


And go down the gutter just like 3dfx....
 
Ockie said:
And go down the gutter just like 3dfx....
Click to expand...
Let's hope not .. :(

I'm all for a faster single chip design personally. Intel has got the right idea with their new monster.

coming soon to a theatre near you....

 
ThreeDee said:
Pretty insightful post regarding a previous immaturish response to a factual concern.
:confused:
:p

anyhoo , looks like we might be seeing a new norm with hardware ..if you cant get the chip to perform faster ...just add more chips!
Click to expand...
you're one to talk ;)

has this not been what was going on since dual cores were launched? and SLI/Xfire? ;)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
you're one to talk ;)

has this not been what was going on since dual cores were launched? and SLI/Xfire? ;)
Click to expand...

you sire ..are correct (yes that's sire and not sir :p )

..and I stand corrected

must ...get ....mind ...out ..of box ....

 
hehehe, yeah. life is troublesome. i've learned to just stop publicly speculating about things and keeping to myself. that way i don't get anymore told-you-so's :p
 
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32424

Even this will be more then enough to kill the Duo2 quad core.

4x4 is just the apitizer. Try 2 or 4 of these on one mobo. Not even intel can make a dual socket for Duo2. The point is buy 2 3800 X2's for 300 bucks and get 80% performance over the fastest duo2. lol Priceless. :D
 
Serge I have to ask this because your Post are strange . How old are you? Did you read the thread you started? If this was the Intel forum I would just shrug . But this is the AMD forum . Why don't you get it. Serge 4x4 is hype. I do agree that with a co processor it has great future. but thats a ways off. Serge K8l is more than a year away . Closer to 08 than you want to believe. Unless AMD exacutes 100% perfectly from here on out. I really don't think that will happen . Serge K8L is not going up against Conroe but Penryn and Nehalem.
 
Serge84 said:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32424

Even this will be more then enough to kill the Duo2 quad core.

4x4 is just the apitizer. Try 2 or 4 of these on one mobo. Not even intel can make a dual socket for Duo2. The point is buy 2 3800 X2's for 300 bucks and get 80% performance over the fastest duo2. lol Priceless. :D
Click to expand...

Serge I feel really bad for you . You hang out in the forums yet you don't seem to have learned anything. I perferr Intel but its because of personal reasons. Not the tech. I love tech no matter who brings it out.
 
Now, I'm all for AMD, but I don't see how 4 cores is any different than getting a dual socket opty with 2 cores/proc...

If it is just that, then, we'll see prices come way down for dual-socket mobos.
 
I would like a quad core computer, it would be great for graphics(photoshop). I could also multitask a lot better. Editing raws with RSP, at the same time and applying actions in photoshop CS2 at the same time as upping 3gb of pics to the web at the same time as converting 2k tiffs to jpegs would be cool....
 
Nice, I'd like to get a two by four for my computer.

2"x4" AMD 5000+ Processors

Looks good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top